The Bible doesn’t even insist on opposite sex marriage. Many instances of concubines and sex with slaves etc. All the Bible does is insist that sex between men is an “abomination”. No mention of women having sex with one another so lesbians don’t have to worry – but it does prohibit women wearing men’s clothes.

@chyna it’s not the look I don’t think, perhaps just the act of a woman putting on a man’s clothing itself. as in your husband comes home and you’re wearing his polo(yes I know) even though you have polo’s of your own that he doesn’t mind you wearing, it’s HIS polo and you are a lesser person than him so it’s an insult. Just taking a stab at it.

@Tobotron see that’s the thing, much of society does put moral weight on the bible. I don’t personally, and I know plenty of people who are the same. But there are plenty of god fearing individuals out there as well.

Yes, secularism is a great achievement. I’m in favor of laws allowing same-sex marriages. In a secular society we can still seek social guidance from religions and ethical philosophies such as humanism. So I do care what the bible says but our societies have changed over the past centuries and we need a modern view. Taking the bible literally in every aspect is dangerous and foolish.

@mattbrowne I’m biased here because I’m an atheist and a socialist and my bias would lean towards religion playing no part in this…however I know that this is not a reality for most people and societies…all I think is that Religion as we know it isn’t sustainable, look another 1000 years to the future society and can religion still be our guidance to making these decisions? I like to think of the bible as the moral standpoint of a few literate dudes of the East back in the day ;)

The Bible is allegorical, not to be taken literally. Only Jesus’ words cannot be refuted for their time. He was brilliant, and nothing wrong with following his hippie ideology..I am not religious though.

Disclaimers: I’m not a bible expert and I am not stressing or dissing. I’m just answering. I’ll leave it to someone else to discuss.

Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Is this the passage you were referring to?
I don’t believe it by the way, I’m just answering the question.
(I don’t feel my marriage is hurt by another couple’s same sex marriage. But that is off topic and has already been discussed.)

It seems to me to be a pretty weak excuse that “because the bible didn’t say I couldn’t do it, it’s fine”.

To me homosexuality isn’t natural in the least. Those parts of the bible that aren’t specifically about homosexuality ARE specifically talking about the union between a man and a woman. God created a woman to be Adam’s help meet. That should say something right there!

So to those who would use this “excuse” that the bible doesn’t say anything about homosexuality being wrong.. I challenge you to find anything in the bible that speaks about the beauty of the union between a man and a man.. or a woman and a woman. If you are to use the bible as a gauge for morality, than don’t ignore what it’s saying.

To think that a book, with tons of flaws, should dictate your stance on any issue seems very puzzling to me. The literalness from 2000 years ago has long outlived its shelf life. Though a solid book in many ways, I should add, a true classic. Huckleberry Finn has suffered the same fate, still widely read, very respected, but has some nasty practices highlighted due to age. Like the Bible’s treatment of women as second class citizens, not eating pork, no blood transfusions, multiple wives, etc.. list is endless. Or does one really believe the Four Horseman coming..if one was literal about the Apocolypse Revelationary tale then they should be riding down on us soon. Don’t tell me in the next breath it is not meant to be literal, for you would have now spoiled your logic in taking all its words as well, gospel..(could not help that, sorry..lol)

What most people seem to forget is that the Bible is NOT the word of God, the contents of the Bible in many cases dated to thousands of years before Christ and they were carefully selected and compiled (not written) by more modern men. By men with biases, clear and evident misogyny, intense racial prejudice and overreaching ambition. How much note would you take a document with such provenance today?

@NaturalMineralWater: You speak of an excuse that we’re making, when the excuse is actually on the side of those who claim that homosexuality is immoral. Personally, I don’t give two shits what the Bible says on this issue. I am attracted to men, and I have loved men, and I will continue to do so. My relationships have been perfectly natural, healthy, and I have not yet ruined anyone’s life by exercising my right to love. I do not look to the Bible for authorization to do so. The only excuse being made in this situation is this: many individuals who have an issue with queer people hide behind the Bible instead of formulating their own opinions are arguments. When you are attempting to tell someone that his or her love isn’t natural (how dare you) it is much easier to do so by saying “God said so!” than by actually attempting to construct an argument to prove that a certain type of love is immoral and unnatural.

@lefteh You’ve already told me that you “don’t give two shits” what the bible says. What argument could I possibly give you that you would be receptive to?

My own take on it is that it isn’t natural.. I’ve explained this numerous times in other threads. When two people of opposite sex get together they are able to create life. When two people of the same sex get together they are able to create sex. To me, the beauty of creation.. the beauty of life.. is removed from the equation. Understand please that this is my opinion. You are quite welcome to your own.

@NaturalMineralWater On that basis I gather you consider sex using any form of contraception, or during a woman’s infertile part of her cycle to be unnatural? How about once a woman reaches menopause – is she to relegated to a life of abstinence? If a guy has a low sperm count, or prostate cancer, is he unnatural if he wants to indulge in any form of sexual activity? How about oral sex and any of the many other non-vaginal variations – do you consider them unnatural? You can’t conceive using them, so I guess that using the criterion described by you, you must consider them unnatural. Sounds pretty boring and unexciting to me.

Please understand please that this is my opinion of your argument. You are quite welcome to your own.

I am not gay, and although like many men of my age, I was raised in a primarily homophobic society, I do try to be tolerant.

Everybody will find the true answer in time. Some will be disappointed while others will be happy. We all have our on beliefs and may be to stubborn to change. If this appears to be the case then why even bother to continue to try? It is kind of like teaching a hog to sing, it frustrates you and just irritates the hog.

No, NaturalMineralWater, it’s not a joke. You implied that homosexual sex is unnatural because it cannot lead to procreation. Neither can any of the things that DarkScribe listed, and so by your logic, they are also unnatural.

@Tobotron – Religion as we know it? How do you know it? Probably quite different from how I know it, and probably quite different from how somebody else knows it. Many atheists and socialists I know are good critical thinkers and stay away from generalizations. Religion will be very different in a 1000 years. It was also very different 1000 years ago. For sure. As change is accelerating it will already be quite different in, say 50 years. Our world is changing, our views are changing, social guidance will also have to change. But human emotions are pretty stable. Joy, surprise, anger, fear, mourning etc. Not much difference 50,000 or 2000 years ago. Not much difference to be expected 50 years into the future. Our brains do change slowly (as long as we don’t become transhumans or posthumans). So is the bible outdated? My answer is: yes and no.

Just joshin ya of course. I’ve gotten the argument too that homosexuality is in nature.. such as hermaphrodite frogs or insects or some such. I still don’t understand this comparison because insects and frogs also do a number of things that it would be decidedly unnatural for a human being to do. They also do some things that are far more pernicious than anything we would do as humans.

So yes… homosexuality does exist in nature.. it is natural in that sense. But it is also unnatural when compared to many other definitions of the word “natural”.

But….............. point taken.. if the word natural is going to confuse people, I’ll switch to a different word.